Hmm, it depends - the 2011 USAF SAR budget document for the KC-46 shows that the USAF budgeted around $7Billion for RDT&E by year end 2016, plus purchase costs of $3.5Billion for the acquisition of 19 aircraft by year end 2016.

The waters are a little muddy.

The contract price ceiling was set at $4.83Billion for the 4 development frames, plus the $3.5Billion for the first 19 aircraft would bring us to a budget of $8.33Billion for the first batch.

I'm not sure why the August 2016 contract was set at a lower cost than the 2011 budget based off the contract - I'm *guessing* that the 2016 contract for $2.8Billion includes penalties for Boeing missing targets (the first 7 aircraft were supposed to be procured in 2015 - instead, the first two batches were rolled into one procurement in 2016).

Boeing’s KC-46 tanker took a $312 million hit to its bottom line last quarter, bringing total charges over the course of the recapitalisation programme to more than $2 billion.

Boeing Commercial absorbed a $243 million pre-tax charge on the KC-46 Tanker programme, while its defense sector took a $69 million pre-tax charge as well. It marks the fifth cost overrun for the programme, following a $354 million and $219 million charge to Boeing commercial and defense last July associated with a refueling boom issue. In the previous quarter that year, the tanker programme cost Boeing commercial $162 million and its defense sector $91 million.

In the picture posted by Karelxwb above you can just see a yellow object in the rear cargo hold, is this one of the auxiliary fuel tanks, is the lowercargo hold space all taken up by these tanks and are they permanently installed or designed to easily 'slide in and out' like LD containers ?

is the lowercargo hold space all taken up by these tanks and are they permanently installed or designed to easily 'slide in and out' like LD containers ?

I was waiting for someone else to answer, but since no one is responding, I will try my best.

These tanks are designed to be removed, but they are not like the LD containers that rolls on and off via cargo handling system. These tanks would require special equipment to lift and slide out of the aircraft.

The Boeing KC-46A tanker’s costs have decreased by $7.3 billion, or about 14%, since its initial estimate but the programme could see future delays, according to a Government Accountability Report released this week.

The US Air Force could decrease its original cost estimate for the KC-46 because the service has not changed requirements and made fewer engineering changes than expected, the GAO report states. That initial estimate included a large amount of risk funding for potential requirement changes.

It goes on to say the concern about delay is that many test points remain to be accomplished, and the WARPs seem to be especially challenging with regard to schedule:

The WARPS are expected to be the last subsystem to receive design approval, according to the GAO. The programme office estimates the FAA will approve the WARP design by July 2017, allowing Boeing to complete developmental flight tests and achieve key milestones.

“According to Boeing officials, the company and its WARP supplier had underestimated the level of design drawing details the Federal Aviation Administration needed to review to determine that the parts conformed to the approved design,” the report states. "The WARP supplier has been negotiating with its various sub-tier suppliers over the past three years for the necessary design documentation.”

The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedomIt is a deadly cancer on American societyThose who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideologyThat is impervious to evidence

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Don't the Omega tankers use a type of WARP system? Those are civilian aircraft.

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Don't the Omega tankers use a type of WARP system? Those are civilian aircraft.

I believe the Omega tankers operate under the experimental category, which exempts them from the FAA certification requirement for the WARP pods.

Pilots are idiots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Did not read the article about the FAA cert. I am also not on the Tanker program. But here is what I can explain about the convoluted system of Military Derivatives.

The FAA need to certify all items that fly's with the KC-46 (and P-8A for that matter) prior to being "militarized" (military mission equipment being installed). They do not certify the military function of the equipment, they just need to certify the anything that may impact the flight characteristic of the aircraft. Any "military" related systems that is on the airplane is turned off (including the WARP). Once the FAA cert is complete, and the mission equipment is installed, then the military is responsible the the rest of the certification of the installed military system.

The note about Boeing and the supplier not realizing how much documentation needed for the WARP could probably be blamed on lost of experience internal to Boeing (or the right mix of experience people did not get on to the tanker Commercial operation - this mix is important as you need both commercial (FAA) and military (WARP) experience working closely to cover all aspect of the cert), lack of experience from the WARP designer and manufacturer with respect to the FAA cert process. (They probably never had to go through this type of cert before as all their previous cert was through a military modification process that only requires a military cert).

So the WARP's selected by the Air Force are used elsewhere in some variation, but they were deployed without the level of drawing details required by the FAA? My assumption is that there are drawings as the product was designed on paper before actual production, so the OEM has spent a couple years going back to suppliers to get original drawings or certified copies for every part that the FAA requires? Does anyone think a political agenda can also be at play, after all, this is the same FAA that has never seen a safety requirement by the NTSB that it liked since it would cost the industry money.What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Why would a WARP need to be FAA certified? There aren't any non-military aircraft that would need them.

Don't the Omega tankers use a type of WARP system? Those are civilian aircraft.

Does Omega fly any tankers that are under 35 years old? I don't see them flying a KC-46 in my lifetime. By that time, the WARP's used by the USAF should have their bugs worked out. Omega can worry about getting. WARP's certified then.

What happens if a small part supplier has already gone out of business, does that require a new supplier and a new part to be fiitted to obtain certification, how do they certify the B-52 to fly?

Did not see this question until now.

If a small part suppler goes out of business and the part is critical the next level supplier, then that higher tier supplier will buy the rights to the design and built the parts themselves (or have somebody else build it). The process would be similar if one company buys out another company. The intellectual rights gets transferred (in this case the rights of the one particular parts and all the associated technology). You would need to re-certify the new part only from a manufacturing stand point as you have changed factory. All the engineering cert would remain (if the part number did not change) or the new part would be qualified through similarity (if the part number changed).

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 10):Lockheed Martin has proposed new build P-3s both to the U.S. Navy as well as international customers.

A better, and more effcient frame for the mission.

Quoting columba (Reply 16):Yes but the P3 even new build would be real competitor for the P8, too small and too old of a design.

Eh,.....the 737 has been in production how long? C-130? Yes, both modernized, as would be a current P3/Electra.

the P3 can do ASW every bit as well as the P8, the P8 can get on station faster than the P3 but the endurance?? The P3 can equal and Exceed anything the P8 can do so there is NO lack in capability between airplanes..

The P3 can equal andExceed anything the P8 can do so there is NO lack in capability between airplanes..

Except in terms of crew comfort, and "the can".Not sure of the P-3 has the same sonobuoy capacity as the P-8.Finally, the P-8A was built with mission upgrade in mind. So upgrading the mission suite would be much easier with the semi-modular cabinets as oppose to the electronic racks on the P-3.